Do entrepreneurial characteristics

affect the choice of strategy?

Department of business studies FE6103 Bachelor Dissertation December 2007 Tutors: Christer Ekelund Elin Smith Authors: Daniela Bendzovska Michelle Blomqvist Zlata Bulic

2

Foreword

We have come to the end of our studies at Kristianstad University and writing

this dissertation is the most challenging and rewarding task we have been faced

with so far. We will never forget our time at the University which has provided

us with knowledge, outstanding and committed teachers, great memories and

equally important, the making of new friendships. We would like to thank our

tutors Christer Ekelund and Elin Smith who have helped us very much and

guided us in the right direction with helpful ideas and suggestions. We would

also like to thank Annika Fjelkner for all her advice, and help with the

language in our dissertation. We also want to extend a special thank you to

Anders Elmevik and Mariann Bergdahl at the Industrial life department in

Kristianstad for helping us with the selection of the organizations that

participated in our study. Last but not least, we would like to thank all the

companies that took the time to participate in our study, without you, it would

not have been possible to complete.

Kristianstad, December 2007

_________________ _________________ _________________

Daniela Bendzovska Michelle Blomqvist Zlata Bulic

3

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is first to define the entrepreneur and also to study certain strategies. Furthermore, we want to make a connection between the two.

Revising various literature and articles on entrepreneurs and strategy was the first step of this dissertation. The next step was to create a matrix ourselves which was based on the literature and articles read. The idea with the matrix was to show that there might be a connection between the entrepreneur’s characteristics and the strategy that they implement. To test if our conclusions were accurate, we created three hypotheses that we tested with the help of our results obtained from the questionnaire from our study.

In the course of the work we found that in some cases there are links between certain characteristics and certain strategies that we focused on in this dissertation.

Trying to define the entrepreneur is not an easy task, different authors say different things. However, some adjectives were used more commonly in the sources we reviewed. This lead us too six characteristics and three strategies that we would be using when studying the entrepreneur. We also chose to limit the choice of our study to service organizations founded in the year 2000, which were still active and located in the area of Kristianstad.

In practice it can be of value for small scale entrepreneurs to be aware of the fact that they themselves very well could be influencing their chosen strategies. If an entrepreneur is aware of this fact he or she might have a more open view to other suggestions and approaches. In the long run this insight could be valuable for their success and the growth of their company.

The value of the paper is that it brings up an approach: the linkage of characteristics and strategy that we did not ourselves find in the existing literature.

Keywords: Entrepreneur, Characteristic, Strategy

4

Table of contents

1. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………..7

1.1 Background…………………………………………………………… 7

1.2 Problem definition……………………………………………………. 7

1.3 Purpose………………………………………………………………...8

1.4 Limitations……………………………………………………………. 8

1.5 Research questions…………………………………………………….9

1.6 Outline…………………………………………………………………9

2. METHOD………………………………………………………………...10

2.1 Choice of methodology……………………………………………….10

2.2 Choice of theory……………………………………………………... 10

2.3 Scientific approach…………………………………………………... 11

3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK……………………………………..13

3.1 The entrepreneur……………………………………………………...13

3.1.1 The Entrepreneurs characteristics………………………………..14

3.1.2 Summary..........................................................................................19

3.2 Organizational strategies……………………………………………...19

3.2.2 Summary…………………………………………………………..21

3.3 The entrepreneurial strategy matrix…………………………………...22

3.3.2 Summary…………………………………………………………..26

4. EMPIRICAL MEHOD………………………………………………… 28

4.1 The research strategy………………………………………………….28

4.2 Data collection………………………………………………………...29

4.3 The sample…………………………………………………………….29

5

4.4 Selection of companies and the response rate………………………...30

4.5 The questionnaire……………………………………………………..31

4.6 Operationalisation…………………………………………………….33

4.7 Analysis of the material………………………………………………35

4.8 Validity and reliability……………………………………………….. 35

4.8.1 Validity……………………………………………………………36

4.8.2 Reliability…………………………………………………………36

4.9 Summary……………………………………………………………... 37

5. ANALYSIS……………………………………………………………… 38

5.1 Presentation of the organizations…………………………………….. 38

5.2 Evaluation of each characteristic…………………………………….. 39

5.3 Evaluation of the strategies: Focused, Related, and Unrelated……… 43

5.4 Evaluation of the connection between the characteristics and the

strategies………………………………………………………………45

5.5 Summary………………………………………………………………49

6. CONCLUSIONS……………………………………………………….. 51

6.1 Summary of the dissertation…………………………………………. 51

6.2 Critique of the empirical method…………………………………….. 52

6.3 Modifications………………………………………………………… 53

6.4 Practical implications…………………………………………………53

6.5 Future Research……………………………………………………… 54

6.6 Final conclusions…………………………………………………….. 54

BIBILOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………. 56

APPENDICES……………………………………………………………... 60

6

APPENDIX 1……………………………………………………………… 61

The questionnaire [English]

APPENDIX 2……………………………………………………………… 68

The questionnaire [Swedish]

APPENDIX 3……………………………………………………………… 75

The key to the 30 statements

LIST OT TABLES Table 3.1 The entrepreneurial strategy matrix…………………………......23

Table 5.1 Industry and size…………………………………………………38

Table 5.2 Statistical values………………………………………………... 43

Table 5.4 Strategy in relation to the entrepreneurial characteristics…….. 45

7

1. Introduction

This chapter is an introduction of the theme of our dissertation. It consists of

the background, problem definition of the theme and also the purpose of this

dissertation. We also present our research questions and outline.

1.1 Background The background of this dissertation started when we discussed which subject to

write about for our bachelor degree. At first we came up with the idea of

researching entrepreneurs and the main question was: “What characteristics do

you have to possess to become a successful entrepreneur?” After having a

meeting with our tutors, Christer Ekelund and Elin Smith, they told us that we

had to take it one step further. This was because the question about

entrepreneurs and their characteristics had already been studied many times

before today so we hade to find a new angle on the subject. So during a

consultation with our tutors, we came up with the idea of including strategy to

our idea of studying the entrepreneur. This led us to our final choice of field:

entrepreneurial characteristics and strategy. What we intended to do was to first

study the entrepreneur’s characteristics and deciding on a few that are the most

common. Then we would study strategy, choosing a few that would best suit

the kind of organizations that would be represented in our study. Finally what

we would do is to connect these entrepreneurial characteristics to a certain

strategy.

1.2 Problem definition When it comes to entrepreneurial characteristics, the problem is to sort out the

most commonly represented characteristics of the entrepreneur by gathering

theory on the subject. There are various strategies that organizations can

8

choose from. We chose to focus on the strategies Focused, Related and

Unrelated. Our intention is to connect certain characteristics to certain

strategies.

1.3 Purpose The purpose of our dissertation is to define the characteristics of an

entrepreneur and extracting those that are the most common when describing

the entrepreneur. Our objective is also to connect these entrepreneurial

characteristics to the Focused-, Related-, and Unrelated strategies.

1.4 Limitations Due to limited time and resources we have decided to interview and analyze

companies in Sweden. More specifically we decided to base our studies in the

district of Kristianstad. Since we have good resources stationed in Kristianstad,

among them our school the University of Kristianstad and Krinova Science

Park which is a type of company that helps new starter companies. To narrow

the topic even more we will select only organisations started by a single

individual. Furthermore we decided only to look at service organizations that

were founded in year 2000 and that were still active today. Finally the

organizations selected would not be part of a corporate group. When a

organization is not part of a corporate group we believe that they have more

control over their day-to-day decisions as well as their long time perspective.

1.5 Research questions

• What characteristics define an entrepreneur?

• Can any of the entrepreneurial characteristics be linked to a certain strategy?

9

1.6 Outline Below we present the outline of our dissertation.

Chapter 2: In this chapter we describe the method for our dissertation.

Chapter 3: This chapter will contain the theoretical framework of our study.

The focus will lie on entrepreneurial characteristics and selected organizational

strategies. We will also create three hypotheses based on the two subjects.

Chapter 4: In this chapter we present our method of conducting our study and

the study’s reliability and validity. We also describe the form of the

questionnaire used in our study.

Chapter 5: In this chapter we will analyze the results of our questionnaire and

present the results of our three hypotheses.

Chapter 6: The final chapter will summarize the dissertation and also give

examples of future research possibilities.

10

2. Method ___________________________________________ In this chapter we will present our choice of methodology and theory. The

scientific approach will also be presented. Our approach is deductive and we

have chosen a quantitative data study.

2.1 Choice of methodology Our first step was to collect relevant theory on the subjects of entrepreneurial

characteristics and organizational strategies. With the help of all our gathered

theory, we created a matrix which we called the entrepreneurial strategy

matrix. To conduct a questionnaire is associated with a deductive approach

while an interview is an inductive approach.

After the theory was processed, and we got a deeper understanding of the

subjects, we planned for a connection of theory to praxis. We chose to do our

study on organizations in the Kristianstad area. The area of Kristianstad is

known for its entrepreneurial spirit. By choosing the area in question we would

have access to Krinova, which provided us with resources and assistance.

The next step was to conduct questionnaires by telephone. The reason we

choose questionnaires is because we want to get a larger number of responses

then would have been possible by for instance trying to book personal

interviews. The questionnaire will be standardized, the same format for all the

organizations in the study.

2.2 Choice of theory The purpose of our dissertation is to define the characteristics of an

entrepreneur and then connect them to the strategies: Focused, Related and

11

Unrelated. We started by addressing the theory and current research in the

study of entrepreneurs. The amount of literature within the field indicates an

interest and fascination for the characteristics of entrepreneurs. A few

examples on this are Cantillon R. whom in 1755 wrote Essai sur la Nature du

Commerce en Général, Schumpeter J.A. whom wrote The Theory of Economic

Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the

Business Circle in 1934, and Landström H. whom wrote Pioneers in

Entrepreneurship and Small Business Research in 2005.

Our objective is to use several different books and scientific articles in the

subject of the characteristics of an entrepreneur and organizational strategies.

As we mentioned previously, the theory about strategy is based on the three

strategies: Focused, Related, and Unrelated. To get up to date information, we

have used newspapers like The Economist. An example of when the newspaper

has been used is when we have been reading articles about the entrepreneurs of

today, to get an insight of the entrepreneurial everyday challenges. During a

course at the University of Kristianstad, we came across a book called

Exploring corporate strategy written by Johnson, Scholes & Whittington, from

2005. This book has been very helpful to us when writing the strategy part of

our dissertation.

2.3 Scientific approach This dissertation is based on a positivistic research philosophy. A positivistic

research philosophy is when quantifiable observations neither affect nor

becomes affected by the researcher (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill 2007).

Our approach is deductive, since we will move from theory to data. This means

that we first developed the theory and then our hypothesis. If it would have

been an inductive approach we would have first gathered our data and then

built up a theory (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill 2007).

12

Our aim was to try to not affect our respondents when they took a stand

regarding the statements. We believe that by having the questionnaire

conducted by telephone, the respondents would be less affected than if we

would have met them in person.

Further, we have based our research on a quantitative study. When you work

with a quantitative study you can express your research in numbers (Körner &

Wahlgren, 2002).

13

3. Theoretical framework

___________________________________________ In this chapter we will start by introducing the entrepreneur and the

entrepreneurial characteristics. We will also be discussing organizational

strategy, in particular three different strategy approaches. In the end of this

chapter there will be a discussion on the connection between the

characteristics and strategies. This will also be illustrated by a matrix that

we have created ourselves.

3.1 The entrepreneur It was Richard Cantillon, an Irish economist, who was the first one to define

the entrepreneur as early as in the beginning of the 17th century (Boyett, 1997;

Hamilton & Harper, 1994). He said that an entrepreneur was one who takes the

risk of buying at a certain price and selling at an uncertain price. Some years

later Adam Smith described the entrepreneurs as agents who convert demand

into supply for profits (Zeromillion, 2007).

Some centuries later in the early 1950’s, the wonder of entrepreneurship was

studied by the economist Joseph Schumpeter. He found that there were certain

people who had the interest of and skills to convert ideas or inventions to

successful innovations. He also found that creative destruction in markets and

industries were created by entrepreneurship and that this created new products

and businesses. This creative destruction was related to economic growth in a

long-time perspective (Thompson, 1999; Boyett, 1997; Hamilton & Harper,

1994).

Professor Johannisson compares a fanatic to an entrepreneur and this is his

result: an entrepreneur is as engaged to a subject as the fanatic but they differ

when something gets in their way of achieving what they want. The fanatic

14

puts even more of an effort to reach his goal. The entrepreneur engages in a

type of dialog with the “problem” or other affected individuals to negotiate an

answer to the problem. This is how the entrepreneur becomes successful, by

acting social and responsible towards the natural world (Johannisson, 2005).

According to Johannisson one can also compare an entrepreneur to a child’s

behavior. Children are often very imaginative and have trouble seeing the

difference between fantasy and reality. They are also creative and learn by

testing their boundaries (Johannisson, 2005).

To get an even better understanding of what an entrepreneur is you could look

at a synonym of the word which is founder. Some say that an entrepreneur is a

founder of one organization and other say that they are founders of more than

one organization (Howorth, Tempest & Coupland , 2005). An entrepreneur is

also an individual that often sees a market opportunity and creates a

functioning organization (Howorth, Tempest & Coupland, 2005; Westaction).

Entrepreneurship is the process of getting an idea from a possibility to the

actual starting of a new organization, a new business. There is risk involved in

entrepreneurship, the idea may not be well accepted by the segment intended,

the correct financial needs may not be met, time schedules may not be followed

and partner-relationships might not work as intended. The risk involved in

entrepreneurship can lead to vast failures. Entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship

are most commonly found in the business sector but the phenomenon can also

be found in other areas like the community (social or civic entrepreneurship),

science, theatre and arts, sports, military service and even in exploration and

adventure (Thompson, 1999).

3.1.1 The Entrepreneurs Characteristics

When we look at entrepreneurs as individuals and their characteristics, we find

the definition of the characteristics shifting between authors. What is clear is

that entrepreneurs have imagination, can see an opportunity where others may

15

not and that they are leaders. Entrepreneurs have an eye for possibilities. When

they have an idea, the broad picture may be clear but details are often evolving

and flexible. With the help of determination and persistence the idea goes from

fiction to reality.

Of course there is no guarantee that the idea will work in reality, but by

assessing costs and possible needs of the future markets, entrepreneurs are

willing to take the risk (The Economist, 2006).

Reading the literature, we mentioned in the method chapter, we have stumbled

across many different characteristics. This made us come to the conclusion that

there are some characteristics that are commonly used when defining the

entrepreneur. These characteristics are that entrepreneurs are risk-takers

(Zeromillion, 2007; Boyett & Boyett, 2001; Thompson, 1999), and leaders

(Landström, 2005; Burns, 2005, Boyett 1997). In addition they are innovative

(Landström, 2005; Thompson, 1999; Burns, 2005; Howorth, Tempest &

Coupland, 2005), creative (Landström, 2005; Thompson, 1999), optimists

(Landström, 2005; Boyett & Boyett, 2001; McCarty, 2003), persistent

(Thompson, 1999; Boyett & Boyett, 2001; Landström, 2005), and opportunists

(Thompson, 1999; Boyett & Boyett, 2001; Landström, 2005; Burns, 2005).

Leader

Entrepreneurs are often called leaders with great leadership abilities

(Landström, 2005; Burns, 2005, Boyett 1997). One can define leadership as

“the position of being the leader of a group, organization, country” or “the

quality of being good at leading a group”1.

1 Longman, Dictionary of Contemporary English. (2003). “Leadership”. Page 838.

16

Innovative and creative

Entrepreneurs are individuals who turn dreams into reality (Thompson, 1999).

This means that they are creative and innovative individuals (Landström, 2005;

Thompson, 1999; Burns, 2005; Howorth, Tempest & Coupland, 2005), this is

important for an entrepreneur. Without ideas how could one build up an

organization? The definition of, to innovate is “to start to use new ideas,

methods or inventions”2(Longman, 2003).

Schumpeter had studied the phenomenon of entrepreneurs and innovation. He

defines entrepreneurship as introducing a new product, new method of

production, new markets or a new organization. Schumpeter thought of this as

a perfect scenario which would help to create wealth by creating a demand in

the market from a newly introduced innovation (Zeromillion, 2007; Thompson,

1999).

An entrepreneur should not run out of ideas, he should be thinking of them

constantly even when watching television or even gardening. A key of being a

successful entrepreneur is coming up with new ideas. Richard Branson,

founder of the Virgin Group, is a perfect example of this. He carries around a

black note book to write down his ideas or suggestions if he comes up with one

suddenly (Boyett & Boyett, 2001).

Optimist

An entrepreneur as an optimist is an entrepreneur with a positive outlook on

life. Entrepreneurs are optimists (Landström, 2005; Boyett & Boyett, 2001;

McCarty, 2003), which is a positive feature, since you need to believe in your

idea. A good example of an entrepreneur being an optimist is the story about

two shoe salesmen. They go in to an old native part of Africa to se if they can

sell shoes. One of them says that there is no point of trying to sell shoes here

2 Longman, Dictionary of Contemporary English. (2003). “Innovate”. Page 838.

17

since no one wears shoes. The other salesman is happy and says no one wears

shoes here, we can dominate the market (Boyett & Boyett, 2001). One mans

trash is another mans treasure, as the expression goes. However, an

entrepreneur should be careful of not being blinded by his optimism. This can

lead to vast failures (Thompson, 1999).

Determined and Persistent

To be determined and persistent is to be consistent and not to give up. These

words are synonyms to each other, and are typical characteristics of an

entrepreneur (Thompson, 1999; Boyett & Boyett, 2001; Landström, 2005).

Thompson says that entrepreneurs are motivated and determined people with

high self-confidence. He also points out that they are flexible in ways that they

can handle an unexpected situation. This is what usually makes them so

successful; they refuse to give up when times get rough (Thompson, 1999).

Boyett and Boyett use the term dogged determination which means that you

are supposed to be stubborn and never give up. Even though you family and

friends are negative towards your idea you should never give in. Debbie Fields,

founder of Mrs. Debbie Fields Cookies, is a good example of this. All her

family members, friends and even best friend said that her idea of selling

cookies was never going to work (Boyette & Boyette, 2001), that she was

crazy and no business could ever survive just by selling cookies (MrsFields,

2007). They were wrong. Fortunately Fields never listened to them and now

she has nearly 390 stores in the U.S. and about 80 stores internationally (Mrs

Fields, 2007). Being passionate about you line of business makes it easier to be

determined if you might need to sacrifice, for instance your time or money

(Boyett & Boyett, 2001).

Opportunist

The definition of opportunism is “the art or practice of taking advantage of

opportunities or circumstances, or of seeking immediate advantage with little

18

regard for ultimate consequences” (onlinedictionary, 2005). As we mentioned

earlier, an entrepreneur is good at spotting opportunities where no one else sees

one (Thompson, 1999; Landström, 2005; Boyett 1997; Burns, 2005; Howorth,

Tempest & Coupland, 2005). Thompson (1999) phrases it as “know where”

instead of “know-how”, which basically means that they know where to look

for business opportunities.

For instance you could see in the story about the two shoe salesmen, which we

presented in the optimist section, that the optimistic shoe salesman is also an

opportunist. He saw an opportunity of selling shoes where nobody wears shoes

(Boyett & Boyett, 2001).

Richard Branson is an example of an entrepreneur who spots good

opportunities, you can draw this conclusion by looking at this his broad line of

business. The Virgin group consists of different products and services such as

beverages, cinemas and even an airline (Virgin, 2007).

Risk-taker

To take a risk is to “decide to do something even though you know it may have

bad results” (Longman, 2003). “When people do things that involve risk in

order to achieve something” (Longman, 2003), is a definition of a risk-taker.

Entrepreneurs should be able to manage risk, and be risk-takers (Zeromillion,

2007; Boyett & Boyett, 2001; Thompson, 1999; Burns, 2005; Boyett, 1997;

Howorth, Tempest, & Coupland, 2005; McCarty, 2003). When you start your

own organization, you automatically get involved with being a risk taker. You

can never know whether you will succeed or fail. The customers might not

respond well to your selection of products or services or you might run in to

economical problems. Many entrepreneurs put their heart and soul into opening

their own organization, and they usually invest every penny that they own into

it. Some helpful advice is that you could take the risk out of the risk which

means that you should be aware of the worst case scenario to know if you

19

would be able to solve the problem if it should become reality. Richard

Branson, founder of Virgin Atlantic was prepared for the worst, so he worked

out an agreement with Boeing to take back the one plane he bought if things

did not work out (Boyett & Boyett, 2001).

Debbie Fields says “the important thing is not being afraid to take a chance.

Remember, the greatest failure is to not try. Once you find something you love

to do, be the best at doing it” (Mrsfields, 2007)3. She was also a risk-taker,

since no one believed that her idea about selling cookies would work, and still

she took the risk of pursuing her dream (Boyett & Boyett, 2001).

3.1.2 Summary

Entrepreneurship is the process of getting an idea from a possibility to the

actual starting of a new organization, a new business. Throughout this chapter

we have also been describing what defines an entrepreneur. Since the 17th

century, a number of people have been defining the entrepreneur in different

ways. There are, however, some charecteristics that have been used more

frequently than others. These words are that he or she is innovative and

creative. Furthermore the entrepreneur is a risk-taker, a leader, an optimist, an

opportunist and determined and persistent.

3.2 Organizational strategies The word strategy derives from the Greek word strategos which is an old word

used in a military sense where stratos means army and ago means leading.

Today, strategy is used as a tool for how to achieve your long-term goals and

ambitions. A definition of strategy is that strategy is “a pattern of decisions and

acts today to secure the future success and make use of opportunities” (Karlöf,

Nilsson, Edenfeldt Froment, 2002, p 1).

3 www.mrsfields.com/about/

20

There are various foundations to choose from when deciding on what strategy

to implement. We have chosen to focus on the following strategies (Johnson,

Scholes & Whittington, 2005; Collin, 2006; Roos, Von Krogh & Roos 1998):

• Focused Strategy

• Related Strategy

• Unrelated Strategy

Why we chose these three strategies is because we think that they are the most

suitable for the type of organizations that we will be studying. If an

organization implements a Focused strategy, it only offers one focused product

or service. Implementing a strategy like this can be perceived as risky since the

organization is dependent on one single product or service for its survival

(Roos, Von Krogh & Roos 1998).

An organization can also choose to diversify its business. This means that the

organization implements a strategy that can take it into new markets and

products or services. What the organization stands to win is an increased

market share and also, by diversifying it spreads the risk for the organization.

Spreading the risk means is that if sales for one of your products or services

plummet, you still have other products that just might do the opposite or stay at

a stable sales rates. It is like taking out an insurance policy for your

organization.

Under the subject of diversification we find two more categories, and these are

Related diversification and Unrelated diversification. Related diversification

can be defined as “strategy development beyond current products and markets,

but within the capabilities or value network of the organization” (Johnson,

Scholes & Whittington, 2005, p 285).

21

Unrelated diversification can be defines as “the development of products or

services beyond the current capabilities or value network” (Johnson, Scholes &

Whittington, 2005, p 288). This means that the organisation is involved in the

development of products or services that is not in any way related to the other

products or services that it is offering. Usually when an organisation decides to

expand its line of business it is more inclined to choose a product or a service

that it has an understanding of. A good example of an entrepreneur that

implements this strategy is Richard Branson. Branson’s Virgin group includes

for instance Virgin travel, Virgin cinema, Virgin music and Virgin trading

(Johnson, Scholes & Whittington, 2005).

To be able to explain what these strategies really mean, we will use a business

that produces nails as an example. If this organization only produces nails and

nothing else, it implements a Focused strategy. If the organization decides to

include screws in their assortment, it implements a Related strategy. Why the

Related strategy is applicable is because a screw is a similar product to a nail

and the organization can make use of the same production methods,

distribution or knowledgebase. It is not a far leap for the organization to

include screws in its assortment. If the organization decides to branch out into a

whole different type of product or service, like for instance potato chips, this

would be classified as implementing an Unrelated strategy. What this means is

that the production facilities, distribution lines and knowledgebase that will be

need for this new product are totally different from what the organization has

right now.

3.2.2 Summary

Strategy is a “map” for how to get your organization where you want it. There

are different strategies that you can choose from but we have focused on three

which are most suitable for our study. These are Focused strategy, Related

strategy and Unrelated strategy. An organization implementing a Focused

strategy offers only one product or service. An organization that offers more

22

than one product or service which are Related in a way that the organization

can make use of the same production methods, distribution and

knowledgebase, is implementing a Related strategy. An Unrelated strategy is

when the organization offer products or services beyond their which are totally

different from their other products and services. Also these products or services

require other production methods, distribution lines and knowledgebase that

will be needed for this new product is totally different from what they are right

now.

3.3 The entrepreneurial strategy matrix After reviewing our theory on entrepreneurial characteristics and strategy, we

have now come to the point where we will link the two subjects together by

creating a matrix. In the matrix, we will have the entrepreneurial characteristics

on one axis and the strategies on the other. The purpose of this matrix is to

show the connection between certain entrepreneurial characteristics and a

certain strategies. For instance, is a risk prone individual more likely to be

implementing a Focused-, Related- or an Unrelated strategy? The matrix is the

product of the theory that we have gathered in the two subjects. We would like

to make it clear that these connections between the entrepreneurial

characteristics and strategies are based on how we view them to be connected

to one another, so it is not an exact science. Below in Table 3.1 you can find

our matrix, which explains why a certain characteristic is linked to a certain

strategy. This is very important since it will be used when comparing theory

with the actual results.

23

Table 3.1 The entrepreneurial strategy matrix

Focused Related Unrelated

Leader X X X

Innovative and Creative X

Determined and Persistent X X

Optimist X

Risk-taker X

Opportunist X X

In the three hypotheses below, we elaborate why we have linked certain

characteristics to certain strategies. We would like to start by saying that the

characteristics found in the matrix above, could very well fit in with all of the

mentioned strategies. However some characteristics are slightly more

predominant in relation to certain strategies.

Hypothesis 1 -- Focused Strategy

• Leader

When it comes to the leader characteristics it is difficult to distinguish in what

strategy it is present to a higher degree. We believe that the leader

characteristic is present in all of the strategies to a higher degree.

• Determined and Persistent

We believe that the determined and persistent characteristic is represented to a

higher degree in Entrepreneurs that use a Focused strategy. Organizations

implementing Focused strategies are depended on the one product or service

that they are offering which requires that they are persistent and determined. If

you are not planning to diversify your business, you have to put all your focus

on the one product or service that you have, which basically is what your entire

organization relies on. Looking at the example of Mrs Fields, also mentioned

24

earlier in this dissertation, she was determined and persistent with her Focused

organization of producing cookies, even though her family and friends told her

that it would not work, she did not give up (Boyette and Boyette, 2001).

• Risk taker

The entrepreneurial characteristic of being a risk-taker we believe is present to

a higher degree in the Focused strategy. As mentioned previously, in a Focused

organization you are dependent on one product or service, you have no other

products or services as a “back-up” if sales should plummet. A great example

of this is yet again Debbie Fields. We mentioned earlier that her focus is

cookies and even though her family and friends did not believe in her idea, she

took the risk and founded Mrs. Fields Cookies.

→ Conclusions of Hypothesis 1 - Focused strategy

Hypothesis 1 is based on the various sources we have revised on the two

subjects and our own conclusions. The outcome was that we believed the

characteristics of being a leader and risk-taker, as well as being determined and

persistent would be present to a higher degree when implementing a Focused

strategy.

Hypothesis 2 -- Related Strategy

• Leader

As we stated in hypothesis 1, the leadership characteristic is hard to link to just

one strategy. We believe that the leader characteristic is present to a higher

degree in all of the strategies.

• Determined and Persistent

Like the leader characteristic, determination and persistence are equally

important if not even more important when running an organization so this

characteristic should be present to a higher degree in the Related strategy. You

25

must have a picture in your mind of where you want to go and how.

• Optimist

When implementing a Related strategy we think that optimism is an important

characteristic to posses so this should be present in the Related strategy to a

higher degree. Let us say that you have a great business idea that you know

will be successful, what can make this business even more successful? Well,

broadening this business with something that could benefit the main product,

for instance a complement. This is the reasoning behind the Related strategy.

• Opportunist

When implementing a related strategy, we stated that it means to offer a range

of products or services that are related to each other, like for instance screws

and nails. It is likely that an opportunity presented itself to include yet another

product or service to the currents ones and finances allowed it, so a person

implementing a related strategy seized this opportunity. This means that the

opportunism characteristic we believe should be present in this strategy to a

higher degree.

→Conclusions of Hypothesis 2 – Related strategy

Hypothesis 2 is based on the various sources we have revised on the two

subjects and our own conclusions. The outcome was that we believed the

characteristics of being a leader, determined and persistent, optimistic and

opportunistic would be present to a higher degree when implementing this a

Related strategy.

Hypothesis 3 -- Unrelated Strategy

• Leader

As stated in hypotheses 1 and 2, we believe that the leadership characteristic is

the common thread throughout all the three strategies in question and is present

26

to a higher degree.

• Innovative and Creative

The innovative and creative characteristic plays the most important role in the

Unrelated strategy so this should be represented in this strategy to a higher

degree. This because we believe that one has to be more innovative and

creative when having a broader line of business. We had an example of

Richard Branson, in the entrepreneurial characteristics chapter under

innovative and creative. He carries around a black note book to write down

what ever idea comes up with when ever time in the day. Richard Branson is

known for his Virgin group and implement an Unrelated strategy. For instance

he has Virgin records, Virgin cinemas, Virgin Atlantic, Virgin coke, and so on

(Virgin, 2007). You could say that he is a very innovative and creative

entrepreneur.

• Opportunist

The characteristic of being an opportunist we believe should be present to a

higher degree when implementing the Unrelated strategy. The entrepreneur

spotted an opportunity in the chance at a new line of business. Richard

Branson’s Virgin Group has an Unrelated strategy since he has such a broad

variety of products and services. Trough this you could also see that he is good

at spotting opportunities.

→Conclusions of hypothesis 3 – Unrelated strategy

Hypothesis 3 is based on the various sources we have revised on the two

subjects and our own conclusions. The outcome was that we believed the

characteristics of being a leader, innovative and creative and an opportunist

would be present to a higher degree when implementing an Unrelated strategy.

27

3.3.2 Summary

We have created a matrix based on our theoretical findings and our own

conclusions. In this matrix we link together the entrepreneurial characteristics

we believe would be present to a higher degree, with each strategy. We also

created three hypotheses, one for each strategy which we would be testing with

the help of the results of our study. The results of these hypotheses will be

presented in chapter 5.

28

4. Empirical method

___________________________________________ In this chapter we will present the empirical method. Later on we will

describe our choice of data collection, the questionnaire, the sample and the

response rate. We will also present the operationalisation of our

questionnaire. The validity and the reliability will be evaluated in the end of

this chapter.

4.1 The research strategy After the theory was processed, we got a deeper understanding of the subjects,

and planned for a connection of the theory to praxis. We chose to study

organizations in the area of Kristianstad. The area of Kristianstad is known for

its entrepreneurial spirit; also we would have access to Krinova and welcomed

its resources and assistance. Krinova is a science park that is a place for

development, new contacts, newly founded organizations, creation of business,

and exchanging knowledge (www.krinova.se). Our tutor Ekelund provided us

with help form Anders Elmevik and Mariann Bergdahl at the Industrial life

department in Kristianstad. They assisted us by providing a list with suitable

organizations to choose from, and this choice would all be done by certain

criteria’s and limitations.

When selecting organizations to study, we decided to concentrate on the area

of Kristianstad. Furthermore, we chose service organizations founded by single

individuals in the year 2000 that were still active in 2006. We found this to be a

good limitation and good indulgence. Furthermore we wanted to concentrate

on companies that were still in business. The financial state of the

organizations is irrelevant when choosing the companies. We would like to

point out that even if an organization is presenting bad results it does not mean

that the entrepreneur is not a successful entrepreneur. The organization might

29

have been struck by unforeseen incidents or other factors which the

entrepreneur could not influence (Delmar, 1997). Due to limited time and

resources we have decided to conduct questionnaires which will provide us

with all the information that we need for our study. To receive quicker answers

than for instance by e-mail, we conducted the questionnaire through the

telephone. By conducting questionnaires by telephone the response rate also

increases.

4.2 Data collection In this dissertation we will use both primary and secondary data. Primary data

is data that is collected by us. In our case primary data is the information

obtained from our questionnaire.

Secondary data is data that has been collected by others and then revised by us.

An example of secondary data is for instance a company’s final accounts

(Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill 2007).

4.3 The sample We used the purposive sampling method when selecting organizations which

we believed would best meet our research objectives. This sampling method is

most often used when dealing with small samples such as in our study. Also,

this sampling method is suitable when you want to select cases which you

believe would be the most informative (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill 2007).

We had to narrow the list of 120 organizations because we have a time limit for

this dissertation. To narrow the list of samples, we decided to study

organizations that were founded in the year 2000, which had survived until the

year 2006, and were located in the area of Kristianstad. Our main requirements

were also that the organizations were not part of a corporate group. The

30

importance of not being part of a bigger corporate group was most importantly

to make it easier for us to talk to the right person, the entrepreneur behind the

organization. This was very important since it was the entrepreneur’s

characteristics that we were going to study. To do so we had to talk to the

founder or co-founder of the organizations. The choice of the final participants

was first intended to be a group of manufacturing corporations however we

choose service organizations instead. The reason for this was that that there

were only few such organizations in the Kristianstad area but on the other hand

service companies were blooming. Finally the sample of organizations that

participated in our study consisted of 18 organizations. Our sample of

organizations were chosen with the help of the Industry department in

Kristianstad. In the response rate section we will explain how many

organisations there was in the list and the process of how it came down to 18

organizations.

4.4 Selection of companies and the response rate Mariann Bergdahl and Anders Elmevik provided us with two lists containing a

total of 120 organizations founded the year 2000. From this list we deleted all

the organisations that did not longer exist in 2006 and the ones that enter were

part of a corporate group. This left us with 57 organisations. From them we

sorted out all consultants and manufacturing organization. We sorted out the

consultants since we were unsure if they could be classified as entrepreneurs.

After the cut we had 31 organisations left. These were the ones we had to call

to ask if they wanted to participate in our study. When we called the

organizations we had to exclude two more organisations, which seemed to have

“disappeared”. One of them had a telephone number which led to another

person and the other did not have a telephone number at all. We did not find

any information about them neither by searching for them on the internet on

google.com, eniro.se or hitta.se. This left us with 29 organisations. There were

13 organisations that did not answer their phones or did not have time to

31

answer our questionnaire. Some did even schedule a phone time with us but did

not answer when we called again. We do want to point out that we called the

organizations several times. When we were finished calling all 29

organizations we had answers from 18 organizations. The active response rate

is the total number of organizations that have responded, which is 18 divided

by the total number of organizations to call excluding the ones that did not

answer or respond (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill 2007). This gave us an active

response rate of 62%. We were satisfied with the response rate since we were

not optimistic before calling the entrepreneurs and were expecting a lower

response rate. Of course we did wish for a higher rate. Since there where some

that offered us to call later but did not answer.

4.5 The questionnaire A questionnaire can be an easy way of collecting data. By conducting a

questionnaire many questions can be asked, quick responses are possible, and

lucid charts can be made. The downside of a questionnaire is that not all the

intended participants answer. Experience from earlier conducted surveys, in

classes such as statistics, have shown us that questionnaires are not always

fully answered. This can lead to inefficient information and difficulties in

making conclusions. When deciding which statements to use, we have to remember that it is quite

difficult to receive objective results when asking someone for example “Do

you consider yourself to be persistent?” People tend to have a picture of

themselves that might differ from how they are perceived by others. We

believe that most people want to describe themselves with adjectives perceived

as positive. We kept this in mind when working on the phrasing in the

questionnaire developed for our study. When creating the questionnaire we

used the internet as a source of finding statements that we felt would be

suitable for studying our six characteristics. These statements we obtained from

32

various sites which provided tests for people to test if they hade what it took to

become an entrepreneur.

We decided to call the organizations by telephone, instead of sending them the

questionnaire by e-mail or regular mail. We thought that this would give us a

higher response rate since many people might ignore to answer the

questionnaire or put it aside in their to-do-pile of papers. This would also be

less time consuming.

Our questionnaire will help us to answer our two main questions; what

strategies are the companies in our study implementing, and which

characteristics do the entrepreneurs possess. This will then be used to help us

make a connection between strategy and entrepreneurial characteristics.

The questionnaire is divided into two parts, which is found in appendix 1. The

first part covers the characteristics of an entrepreneur, while the second part

covers the strategies used by the individual organisations. The first part

includes 30 statements aimed at catching the entrepreneurial characteristics. In

statement number 18 we state: I prefer to be a loner when making a final

decision. The respondents are asked to mark whether they agree or disagree in

a scale ranking from 1 to 7 where 1 means to highly disagree, 4 means to

neither agree nor disagree, and 7 means to fully agree. Using this type of scale

which is called a Likert scale, gives us a wider spread than if we would have

yes or no answers. The statements covering this part are divided into six

characteristic categories. They are measuring whether an entrepreneur is a

leader or a risk-taker. Furthermore we will be looking at whether the

entrepreneur is innovative and creative, determined and persistent, as well as

optimist, and opportunist.

The second part consisted of three open-ended questions. The questions were

designed to help us learn the organizations main industry, if the organizations

had another industry alongside their main industry, and to give us a clearer

33

picture of the services that they offer. This would all be very helpful when

deciding on whether the organizations implemented a Focused, Related or

Unrelated strategy. Prior to calling the organizations in our study, we already

knew what their main industry was. However, we asked the entrepreneurs to

elaborate to make sure that we had understood their main industries correctly.

4.6 Operationalisation In this section we will describe our operationalisation which means evaluating

the verity by measurements. Our main focuses lied on two areas: the

characteristics of an entrepreneur, and strategies. Regarding the later; namely

strategies, we concentrated on Focused-, Related-, and Unrelated strategies.

The characteristics in question are: determined, persistent, innovative, creative,

risk taking, optimist, opportunist and leader. Our focus lies on the entrepreneur

being a: leader, innovative and creative, determined and persistent, optimist,

risk taker, and opportunist. Our goal was to find out if these certain

characteristics could be linked to the strategies previously listed. To determine

which characteristics each entrepreneur possesses we have chosen different

statements numbered from 1 to 30 are formulated to answer our first research

question about the characteristics of an entrepreneur. These statements have

been chosen from different entrepreneurial test on the internet some have been

changed and others remained as they where.

To get an understanding of the actual entrepreneur’s characteristics, we needed

to reach the actual entrepreneurs behind the chosen organisations, we could not

settle with for instance his secretary answering in his place because then it

would be her characteristics and give misleading results. We have five different

statements for each characteristic, spreading the statements equally trough the

questionnaire almost like a personality test. We hope to get a somewhat clear

picture of their entrepreneurial characteristics. Even though there is a

possibility that the participants might have a little bit of each characteristic in

34

them.

Each characteristic is represented by 5 statements each. Below you will find

which statements that are connected to each characteristic, you can also follow

them in appendix 2:

Characteristic Statements_____

Leader 2, 5, 10, 12, 18

Risk taker 6, 13, 16, 19, 23

Opportunist 7, 22, 26, 28, 30

Optimist 11, 17, 20, 24, 29

Innovative & Creative 8, 4, 9, 14, 27

Determined & Persistent 1, 3, 15, 21, 25

Four of the statements are constructed in a way that a low number on the 1-7

scale indicates that you are highly connected to the characteristic behind these

statements. These will be re-coded when we will be doing the statistical tests

on the questionnaires.

Now the difficult part began. We were puzzled by how to formulate the

questionnaire to be able to receive proper answers when it came to the

strategies used. How would we ask the questions to receive the answers about

if the entrepreneurs had Focused-, Related-, or Unrelated strategies?

We tried to solve this problem by our final three questions: 1. “What is your

main industry?” 2. “Do you have any industry alongside your main industry?”

and 3. “Can you list the services that you offer your customers?” In these three

final questions we had open-ended questions. We wanted short answers which

basically were all it took to be able to figure out what strategy they

35

implemented.

We hoped that the answers after the phone interviews were completed, would

give us a clear picture of the entrepreneurs characteristics and the strategies

that they implement.

4.7 Analysis of the material Previously we have created our own model that we called the entrepreneurial

strategy matrix. This matrix consists of six entrepreneurial characteristics and

three strategies that were relevant for the companies that we would be looking

at. To create this matrix we used our knowledge gathered on the two subjects.

What we will be doing is analysing the results from our questionnaire that we

received from the companies in our study. When it comes to the characteristics

we have entered each entrepreneur’s answers into a statistical program called

SPSS. As for the strategies, these will also be entered into SPSS by renaming

them numerically as follows: Focused=1, Related=2 and Unrelated=3. How we

came to the conclusion of which strategy the different organizations

implemented was with the help of the three strategy questions in our

questionnaire. How we will go from here is to conduct an Alpha test which will

show us if the statements can be said to measure the same thing (Hair,

Anderson, Tatham & Black, 1995). Based on the results of this test, we will

choose how to proceed with our analysis. The final step is to get the mean

value for each characteristic represented in the questionnaire, and combine this

with the strategies to enable us to compare our results to our previously created

matrix.

4.8 Validity and reliability In this passage we will present the validity and reliability of our results from

the questionnaire. Are the results consistent when dealing with the same

36

measure and are the results valid, these are the questions addressed.

4.8.1 Validity

Validity is a measurement of the accordance between what the questionnaire is

intended to measure and what it actually measures. The aim is to avoid

systematic errors of measurement (Körner & Wahlgren; 2002).

Our aim was to measure if the entrepreneurs possess the six characteristics and

if there was any correlation between the characteristics and the strategies.

When it comes to the statements, we tried to use statements that would not be

perceived in a more positive or negative way. We tried to not let the questions

be leading. As we have already mentioned, existing statements from other

conducted scientific questionnaires were used as a base for us to further

develop the statements. The questionnaires that we used you could find in

bibliography under internet sources. Still, we can not be sure that the

statements are not perceived in a certain way, nor is there certainty that the

statements will measure what we intended them to measure. However we do

feel that our three questions regarding the organisations strategy can not miss

lead us when deciding which strategy each organisation implements.

There are also other factors that can lower the validity of our study such as the

respondents’ lack of trust or wanting to portray themselves in a better manner

by answering in a untrue manner.

Since we have used only six different characteristic and only three different

strategies the theory is restricted to these areas. Since the questionnaires were

conducted by eighteen entrepreneurs there can not be generalisation.

4.8.2 Reliability

Authenticity, also called reliability, is a request when it comes to the results of

our measurements (Körner & Wahlgren; 2002). We are trying to avoid random

mistakes and are aiming for accurate results.

37

We had asked the participants to take a stand regarding the statements which

are constructed to measure our six characteristics. Some participants might

have found it difficult to take a stand to some statements and perhaps had been

in need of more time to think about their answers. We conducted

questionnaires trough the phone with the goal of being neutral in our

formulation. We need to keep in mind that even though our aims of being

neutral our tone or non-verbal ways might have had an impact on the

percipient. When asked to repeat the question or to explain what we mean,

there is a bigger risk of influencing the participant.

4.9 Summary

We used a questionnaire consisting of two parts: a first part about the

characteristics of an entrepreneur, and the second part about the used strategies

by the entrepreneur. Both the parts were asked all the participants though the

phone. To obtain the results, a scale of 1 to 7 was used whilst for the

strategies, we used open questions. From the 29 companies asked 18

companies wanted to participate. This makes up a response rate of 62%.

38

5. Analysis

___________________________________________ In this chapter we present the organizations and evaluate the characteristics

and strategies. An evaluation of the outcome of our study will also be

presented. The analysis is based on the telephone questionnaires aimed at

analyzing the entrepreneur’s characteristics and implicated strategies and

how these two are connected.

5.1 Presentation of the companies

In this passage we will present some facts for the organizations that

participated in our study in Table 5.1. The content from Table 5.1 comes from

the Industrial Life Department in Kristianstad and from our telephone

conducted questionnaires.

Table 5.1 Industry and size

Organization Employees Industry

1 3 Handle taxes, book keeping, accounting etc

2 6 Leasing of construction and facility machinery and people to operate them

3 2 Various floor and wall work in mostly natural stone and also tiling work

4 1 Transportation of gods, only heat pellets to house owners

5 1 Various carpeting and construction services for house constructions

6 3 Various massage services and products for sale

7 7 Various welding and metal work

8 1-4 Auto service, various services and products for sale

9 2 Auto service, various services and products for sale

39

5.2 Evaluation of each characteristic

Before going into the analysis of the six entrepreneurial characteristics the

analysis procedure is presented. The six characteristics we are examining are

each represented by five statements in the questionnaire. This gives us a total

of 30 statements that are presented in the questionnaire. These 30 statements

aim to measure the entrepreneur’s characteristics. To see if the statements

measured the same thing, we conducted an Alpha test (Hair, Anderson,

Tatham, Black, 1995). However, the results of this test were not between the

desirable ranges of 0.65 to 1.00 which indicates that they were not measuring

the same thing. The reason for this can be that the statements were too

confusing for the subjects, that we choose the wrong statements to represent a

certain characteristic or perhaps that 18 participants were too few to get fair

Alpha values. The next step was to conduct a correlation test. The most

commonly used correlations tests are the Spearman and Pearson test which are

measurements of the potency of the variables linear correlation (Wikipedia,

2007). We chose the Spearman test since it is suitable for correlating small

samples. For some characteristics this resulted in significant correlation, for

others it did not. Those statements that were significantly correlated were the

10 7 Restaurant business which also does catering and has a side business in form of a hostel

11 1-4 Roof work and various plate work

12 2 Transportation of gods, only timber

13 6 Various isolation work and also various plate work

14 1 Metal recycling only

15 8 House construction and ground work

16 8 Agricultural and sanitation transportation

17 3 Dental care, various dental services

18 2 Legal firm, assistance in various legal issues

40

ones chosen to represent the characteristic in question. For those characteristics

which did not have any statements that were correlated, we had to use our own

judgement and choose which statement we felt was best at capturing the certain

characteristic. What this means is, if we were measuring an entrepreneur’s

leadership attribute by five statements in the original questionnaire only one of

these statements was actually used in the analysis. For these statements the

mean value, standard deviation, and max/min values were calculated and the

results are presented in Table 5.2 in this section. We will also present the Alpha

values for each characteristic. Also the correlation coefficience and

significance value will be presented for the statements in question. An analysis

of each characteristic will be presented below:

→ Risk-Taker

In the questionnaire we had 5 statements intended to measure risk. The risk

was tested with Alpha and the result was -0.807 which is not within the

accepted level. This means that the statements did not measure the same thing.

The next step was conducting the Spearman-test to see which statements were

correlated. The test showed that the statements 13 and 23 are significantly

correlated (correlation coefficient =0.502, significance = 0.034). This means

that these two statements are correlated. The three other statements aimed at

measuring risk (statements number 6, 13, and 19) are not significantly

correlated. The reason for them not being correlated could be that the

statements were formulated in a difficult manner which the participants may

have misunderstood. Another reason for the statements not being correlated

could be that the respondent maybe answered hastily without profound

understanding or by habit. Also, the low number of participants could be

another explanatory factor.

41

→ Innovative and Creative

First we tested the Alpha value for the five statements concerning the

Innovative and Creative characteristic. The Alpha result was 0.415 which is a

fairly good result but still is not within the accepted level. Statements 8 and 9

are significantly correlated (correlation coefficient =0.586, significance

=0.011). The other three statements (statements number 4, 14, and 27) are not

being used since they indicated no significant correlation.

→ Determined and Persistent

When testing the five statements concerning the Determined and Persistent

characteristic we calculated the Alpha value which was 0.582, this is a fairly

good result but still not within the accepted level. Statements 1 and 21 are

significantly correlated (correlation coefficient =0.546, significance = 0.019)

and are therefor being used for analyzing the participant’s entrepreneurial

characteristic. The other three statements (statements number 3, 15, and 25) are

not being used since they did not indicate a significant correlation.

→ Leader

The Alpha value was -0.029 which is not within the accepted level. When it

comes to the five statements represented in the questionnaire, that were used to

determine the entrepreneur’s leadership characteristic, we found a lack of

statistical correlation. The correlation coefficient for the statements intended to

measure the leadership characteristic were simply not high enough. Therefore,

we had to try a different approach. To be able to determine the existence of the

leadership characteristic among our participants, we chose one statement,

which was statement 2 which we considered to be easy to understand and that

according to us would best measure leadership.

42

→ Opportunist

The Alpha value was -1.544 which is not within the accepted level. No high

enough correlation coefficient for the statements intended to measure the

Opportunist characteristic were present. Therefore, we had to do as we did with

the measurement of the results of the leadership characteristic. We had to select

one statement that we considered to be easy to understand and that would best

measure opportunism. We considered statement number 30 as being the best

choice.

→ Optimist

The Alpha value was -0.867 which is not within the accepted level. Just as for

the characteristics leader and opportunist no high enough correlation

coefficient for the statements intended to measure the optimist characteristics

was present. Therefore statement number 11 was chosen for further analysis.

Below in Table 5.1, we present mean value, standard deviation, and max/min

values for each characteristic. The max/min values represent the highest and

lowest values among the entrepreneurs’ answers on the scale of 1 to 7. This is

done for each characteristic and all the strategies at the same time. As can be

seen in the table, the highest mean is present for the optimism characteristic

and the lowest for the opportunism characteristic. This shows that the

entrepreneurs feel more optimistic than opportunistic. The standard deviation

values are included since we find them interesting even though they are not of

any importance for our analysis. First you calculate the mean values for all the

data for our characteristics and then, what the standard deviation shows us is

the average of the distance of each data point from the mean values in question

(Körner, 1985; Business analysis made easy, 2006).

43

Table 5.2 Statistical values

Characteristics Mean Standard deviation Max/Min

Risk-taker 5,33 1,27 2,50-7,00

Innovative and Creative 6,03 1,01 3,00-7,00

Determined and Persistent 4,42 1,51 2,00-7,00

Leader 4,42 1,51 2,00-7,00

Opportunist 3,97 1,27 2,50-6,50

Optimist 6,25 0,94 4,00-7,00

5.3 Evaluation of the strategies: Focused, Related, and Unrelated When it comes to the strategies, it was not that difficult to determine whether

the organizations in our study implemented a Focused, Related or Unrelated

strategy. Prior to calling the selected organization’s, we already knew what

their main industry was since this was provided to us by the Industrial life

department. However, for some organizations we did not fully understand

exactly what their main industry entailed so we formulated question number

1, “What is your main industry?” to get a better explanation from the

entrepreneur of what they were doing. We also asked if they had any other

businesses other than their main industry. This was to help us find if there

were any organizations that were implementing an Unrelated strategy. The

last question was designed to make it easier for us to connect the organization

to either the Focused or the Related strategy.

To try and illustrate how we went about pairing up the organizations with the

right strategy, we will give three examples, one for each strategy.

44

Organisation 4 was in the transportation of goods business and this was their

main industry. What they did was transport heat pellets to house owners

around the Skåne district. This is classified as a Focused strategy since they

only offered one single service.

Organisation 9 was in the car maintenance business which was their main

industry. Their services were many but mainly related to body work,

varnishing, engine repair work, air-condition installation and so forth. They

also sold products like tyres, rims, car stereos and so on. This means the

organization had a Related strategy.

Organisation 10 was in the Restaurant business which was their main

industry. However they also had a hostel business alongside this. So the

company offered meals, you could also hire them to cater a party, book their

assembly room or banqueting room and also stay the night. This means the

organization had an Unrelated strategy.

The final results show that 5 of the organizations had a Focused strategy, 11

had a Related strategy and only 2 had an Unrelated strategy. Since the

organizations were service organizations, these results were not a surprise.

Implementing an Unrelated strategy is more likely something that

manufacturing organizations would do since there is a great difference

between offering a product and a service. A focused strategy is more common

than an Unrelated strategy but still something that probably is more common

in manufacturing organizations. As we found out, 11 of the organizations

implemented a Related strategy and this was also expected since most

organizations tend to offer more than just one service.

45

5.4 Evaluation of the connection between the characteristics

and the strategies

In Table 5.3 we present the results of the connection between the six

entrepreneurial characteristics and the three strategies we chose to study. Our

theoretical belief was presented in Table 3.1 in the entrepreneurial strategy

matrix. To illustrate our previous conclusions made in Table 3.1, the mean

values and standard deviations are in bold numbers in Table 5.3 below. A

discussion of the hypotheses will follow.

Table 5.3 Strategy in relation to the entrepreneurial characteristics

When evaluating the results of the connection between the six characteristics

and the three strategies we can look at the mean value. The table is divided into

the characteristics and the strategies, with the strategies as a base. The mean

values, (max 7, min 1) show us which characteristics that are dominating for

each strategy; the higher the number, the more present are the characteristics.

Focused Related Unrelated Leader

Mean 3.60 Stdv 1.14

Mean 4.82 Stdv 1.78

Mean 5.50 Stdv 2.12

Innovative and Creative Mean 5.60

Stdv 0.74 Mean 6,00 Stdy 1.11

Mean 7.00 Stdv 0.00

Determined and Persistent Mean 3.80

Stdv 1.60 Mean 4.55 Stdv 1.57

Mean 5.25 Stdv 0.35

Optimist Mean 6.60 Stdv 0.59

Mean 5.64 Stdv 1.80

Mean 6.50 Stdv 0.70

Risk-taker Mean 5.70 Stdv 0.91

Mean 5.00 Stdv 1.40

Mean 6.25 Stdv 1.06

Opportunist Mean 4.80 Stdv 2.28

Mean 4.55 Stdv 1.44

Mean 5.50 Stdv 2.12

46

We decided that a mean value between 5 and 7 is to consider that the

characteristic is present to a higher degree for the strategy in question. Still, we

would only look at the three highest mean vales between 5 and 7 for each

strategy since we have to limit ourselves somehow. The standard deviation as

we mentioned earlier, shows us the average of the distance of each data point

from the mean values in question (Körner, 1985; Business analysis made easy,

2006). We will now present the results of the testing of the hypotheses.

Results of Hypothesis 1 - Focused Strategy

The highest mean values were represented by the following characteristics:

• Innovative and Creative

The mean value was 5.60. According to our theoretical conclusions we did not

foresee the innovative and creative characteristic to be present to such a high

degree in the Focused strategy.

• Optimist

The mean value was 6.60. This result was the highest one represented in the

Focused strategy. This means that the entrepreneurs using a Focused strategy

possessed a high degree of the characteristic of being an optimist.

• Risk Taker

The mean value was 5.70. In our theoretical hypothesis we came to the

conclusion that the Focused strategy would be represented by entrepreneurs

that possess a high degree of the risk-taker characteristic and on this point we

were accurate.

When we created our hypotheses, we believed that the characteristics of being

a leader and being determined and persistent would also be present to a higher

degree in the Focused strategy. However, the results showed us that the lowest

mean values for were found for these two characteristics. They were as low as

3.60 and 3.80 which we think does not at all indicate a strong connection to the

47

characteristics.

→ Conclusion of the results of Hypothesis 1

According to our matrix derived from theory, we stated that entrepreneurs

implementing a Focused strategy would posses a high degree of leadership,

risk-taking and determination and persistence. As it turned out we were only

right on the risk-taker characteristic. Perhaps this is due to the low number of

participants in our study, inconsistencies with the questionnaire or simply that

the theory pointed us in the wrong direction. This means that the hypothesis is

partly accepted.

Results of Hypothesis 2 - Related Strategy

The highest mean values were represented by the following characteristics:

• Innovative and Creative

The mean value was 6.00. This was also the highest one representing the

Related strategy. This means that the entrepreneurs implementing a Related

strategy posses a high degree of the innovative and creative characteristic.

• Optimist

The second highest mean value for the Related strategy was 5.64 and was

represented by the characteristic optimist. This indicates a high degree of this

characteristic. We were successful in predicting that this characteristic would

be present to a higher degree when implementing this strategy.

• Risk-Taker

The mean value was 5.00 for the risk-taker characteristic for the Related

strategy. This also indicated a high degree of the characteristic in this strategy.

48

When we created our hypotheses, we believed that the characteristics of being

a leader, determined and persistent and opportunistic would be present to a

higher degree in the Related strategy. The mean values for these three

characteristics were also the ones which were the lowest. The mean values

were 4.82, 4.55 and 4.55.

→ Conclusion of the results of Hypothesis 2

According to our matrix derived from theory, we stated that entrepreneurs

implementing a Related strategy would posses a high degree of leadership,

determination and creativity, optimism and opportunism. As it turned out we

were only right about the optimist characteristic. As we stated in Hypothesis 1,

this outcome could be a result of the low number of participants in our study,

inconsistencies with the questionnaire or simply that the theory pointed us in

the wrong direction. This means that the hypothesis is partly accepted.

Results of Hypothesis 3 - Unrelated Strategy

The highest mean values were represented by the following characteristics:

• Innovative and Creative

The participants in our study that implement an Unrelated strategy have

uniformly answered the statements connected to being innovative and creative,

with the highest number on the Likert scale, which was a 7. In this case the

results are clear, the mean value is 7.00. We were successful in predicting that

this characteristic would be present to a higher degree when implementing this

strategy.

• Optimist

The second highest mean value was represented by the characteristic of being

an optimist. The results from the questionnaire showed that the mean value for

this characteristic is 6.50. This means that the Entrepreneurs that implement an

49

Unrelated strategy in their organization, possesses a high degree of the optimist

characteristic.

• Risk Taker

The mean value for the risk-taker characteristic was 6.25 for the Unrelated

strategy. What this means is that entrepreneurs that implement an Unrelated

strategy, possesses a high degree of being risk-takers.

When we created our hypotheses, we also believed that the characteristics of

being a leader and an opportunist would be present to a higher degree in the

Unrelated strategy. The results of the study showed us that the mean values for

both were actually pretty high, the mean values for them both was 5.50. These

were however not the highest mean values found for this strategy. The lowest

mean value was represented by the determined and opportunistic characteristic

and this was also a high which indicates a high connection to this

characteristic.

→ Conclusions of the results of hypothesis 3

According to our matrix derived from theory, we stated that entrepreneurs

implementing an Unrelated strategy would posses a high degree of leadership,

innovation and creativity and opportunism. As it turned out we were only right

about the innovative and creative characteristic. As we stated in Hypotheses 1

and 2, this outcome could be a result of a number of factors. This means that

the hypothesis is partly accepted.

5.5 Summary

We created three hypotheses that were based on the results of the matrix. The

next step was to test these hypotheses with what the results of what the study

50

showed us. What we found is that all three hypotheses can be partly accepted,

since one characteristic in each strategy had managed to match with the actual

results. We had hoped for the hypotheses to have been fully accepted but we do

not think that a result like this is possible to achieved, since the connection

between the two subjects is a very complex issue.

51

6. Conclusions

Now, coming to this final chapter, we have covered method, theory, the

empirical study, and also our results .In this chapter we will summarize our

dissertation including methodological critique, modifications and practical

implementation. The very last paragraph will be our final conclusion.

6.1 Summary of the dissertation

As a first step we gathered relevant theory about our two subjects,

entrepreneurial characteristics and strategy. Our next step was to connect the

two subjects and we chose to do so by creating a matrix which we called the

entrepreneurial strategy matrix. To test if the theory corresponds with reality

we conducted a questionnaire which consisted of 30 statements to measure the

entrepreneurial characteristics and three open-ended questions to determine

which strategy was implemented. We got a total of 18 participating

organizations in our study. The Results showed that the statements used were

not significantly correlated which means that they did not appear to measure

the same thing. Thus, we had been unsuccessful when constructing the

statements. Also the low number of participants makes it difficult to generalise

the results. Some might have even answered a specific number for say 3 times

in a row as a habit without really thinking through their answer that much. To

be able to recreate the study, the statements in the questionnaire should be

modified. The study should also aim to get more participants by excluding

some of the limitations when selecting which organizations to study. We found

that all three hypotheses can be partly accepted, since we had been successful

in predicting one characteristic for each strategy beforehand.

52

6.2 Critique of the empirical method

To assemble all the data we needed for our research we conducted a

questionnaire, as we mentioned earlier. The questionnaire was conducted in a

way that we would see whether the entrepreneurs possess the selected

characteristics and if there was any relation between the characteristics and

strategy. The problem with having a questionnaire over the telephone is that

the correspondents might not feel to secure since they really do not know who

we are even though we presented our selves and our purpose. This might have

led to answers that they did not believe in. We had actually two correspondents

that were uncertain about answering our questionnaire, and you could hear

their voice hesitate. It might have been easier for them to see the actual

questionnaire and plotting in the answers by themselves. But as we mentioned

earlier it would have been time consuming to send them the questionnaire by e-

mail or regular mail. We also had a disadvantage in the time limit; you do not

want to take up too much of their time and almost all of them were concerned

about how long it would take to answer the questionnaire. Sometimes it is easy

to see whether a person is lying during an interview, but we did not have that

opportunity. When we first started our dissertation we had in mind that we

where going to interview companies. However the lack of time made us unable

to do interview and we had to resort to a questionnaire by telephone.

As we mentioned earlier we decided to concentrate our research to the

Kristianstad region, this because we had our recourses in Kristianstad. The

organisations we had selected were therefore from the Kristianstad region. At

first they where supposed to be manufacturing organisations. When talking to

Marianne Bergdahl at the industrial life department she gave us a list of

manufacturing organisations and told us that there are not many organisations

that are manufacturers as we saw in the list. This forced us to change our minds

and collect our data from service companies.

53

Unfortunately this change made it harder for us to contact the entrepreneurs,

since having an organisation that offers services, some did not have time to

answer our questionnaire. Some organisations did offer to talk to us the

following week. That was not an option since we had such limited time. At the

same time some entrepreneurs were not eager and willing to answer questions.

Others gave us a date and time when we could call, but did not answer when

we called again. Another set back with the change from manufacturers to

service organisations was that we did not get that many organisations

implementing an Unrelated strategy. This is because it is more common to be

implementing this strategy in manufacturing organizations. Organisations

offering services often have Related services for instance changing of tyres or

engine repair work.

6.3 Modifications

As presented in chapter five we could not use all the statements in the

questionnaire. There were 30 statements, five for each characteristic that we

aimed to measure. When using the Spearman-test it was clear that the five

statements for each characteristic measured were not significantly correlated.

In three of the characteristics there were no significant correlations amongst

any of the questions. In these cases we had to use a different approach. Here

we would pick out one of the five statements that was easy to understand and

that we found would best measure the characteristic in question.

6.4 Practical implications

It would be interesting to know if there really is any influence on the choice of

strategy depending on the characteristics of the entrepreneur or the person in

charge of a small organisation. Of course when it comes to a larger

organisation it is more difficult for one individual to personally affect major

decisions. Even if they do, these effects fade away in the larger concept.

54

However it could be of importance to be aware of what impact a single

individual might have on the directions of an organisation. If one is aware of

the fact that some choices are affected by one’s characteristics it could be

valuable. This awareness is good not mainly to change the choices made or that

will be made, but more to be open for other approaches.

6.5 Future Research

We created the entrepreneurial matrix which can be reused for further studies

in the subjects in question. Since our study only included 18 organizations, we

could not generalise the results. Perhaps if we did not limit our study to the

Kristianstad area only or organizations founded in the year 2000 and had more

time to conduct more questionnaires, the results could be more reliable.

Perhaps we should have included the few manufacturing organizations in our

study as well since all these limitations left us with very few organizations to

ask to participate in our study.

For future research it would have been interesting to take it a step further,

including organisations from other countries and comparing them with the

Swedish ones. Maybe not all countries would be suitable for the study, such as

countries that are similar to Sweden. However entrepreneurs and organisations

in developing countries could differ from the ones in Sweden, a well developed

country.

6.6 Final conclusions

Regarding the study we have come to the conclusion that the statements in the

questionnaire need to be modified and the number of participants needs to be

higher, to achieve better results. Even if the results we achieved were not

exactly what we were hoping they would be, they still showed that some of our

assumptions were correct. Our three hypotheses were partly accepted but and

55

this is a result that is after all quite good.

56

Bibliography

Books:

Burns, P. (2005). Corporate Entrepreneurship, Basingstoke, U.K.:

Palgrave Mcmilan.

Boyett, J. & Boyett, J. (2001). The Guru Guide to entrepreneurship, New

York, U.S: Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Delmar, F. (1997). Entreprenörskapets psykolog, Furulund, Sweden:

Alhambra AB.

Hair, J. F., Anderson R. E., Tatham R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995).

Multivariate data analysis, Harlow, U.K: Prentice Hall.

Johannisson, B. (2005). Entreprenörskapets väsen, Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur.

Johnson, G., Scholes, K., & Whittington, R. (2005). Exploring corporate

strategy - text and cases, Harlow, U.K: Prentice Hall.

Karlöf, B., Nilsson, S., & Edenfeldt Froment, M. (2002). Strategi i ett

styrelseperspektiv - en vägledning, Stockholm, Sweden: Ekerlid.

Körner, S. (1985). Statistisk slutledning, Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur

Körner, S., & Wahlgren, L. (2002). Praktisk statistik, Lund,

Sweden: Studentlitteratur.

Landström, H. (2005). Entreprenörskapets rötter, Lund, Sweden:

Studentlitteratur

Roos, G., Von Krogh, G., & Roos, J. (1998). Strategi, Lund, Sweden:

Studentlitteratur.

Saunders, M., Philip, L., & Thornhill, A. (2007). Research methods for

business Students, Harlow, U.K: Prentice Hall.

57

Articles and Research Reports:

Boyett, I. (1997). “The public sector entrepreneur – a definition” 3; 2: 77-92.

Retrieved 18th December , 2007, from

www.emeraldinsight.com.ezproxy.bibl.hkr.se/Insight/viewContentItem.do;

jsessionid=D65B7BF500B1007E39A29F66BCC3028A?contentType=Arti

cle&contentId=872025

Gerber, M ( 27 December 2004). “Think like an Entrepreneur: What one

quality do all successful business owners share?” Retrieved October,

2007,from

http://www.entrepreneur.com/management/leadership/article75258.ht

ml

Guen Sublette (25 October 2005). “105 Service businesses to start

today” Retrieved October, 2007, from

http://www.entrepreneur.com/startingabusiness/businessideas/article8

0684.html

Hamilton R.T., & Harper D.A. (1994). ”The Entrepreneur in Theory and

Practice”. 21; 6:3-18

Retrieved 18th December, 2007, from

http://www.emeraldinsight.com.ezproxy.bibl.hkr.se/Insight/viewContentIt

em.do;jsessionid=46E63DEC0EADE155D4F2331CC0CE34B7?contentTy

pe=Article&contentId=845991

Howorth, C., Tempest S., & Coupland C. (2005). “Rethinking

entrepreneurship methodology and definitions of the entrepreneur” 12; 1:

24-40. Retrieved 18th December, 2007, from

www.emeraldinsight.com.ezproxy.bibl.hkr.se/Insight/viewContentItem.do;

jsessionid=B5735273405F2A8F5DD9EF8313E003F8?contentType=Artic

le&contentId=1464956

McCarty, B. (2003). “Strategy is personality-driven, strategy is crisis-

driven: insughts from entrepreneurial firms” 41; 4:327-339 Retrieved

18th December, 2007, from

58

www.emeraldinsight.com.ezproxy.bibl.hkr.se/Insight/viewContentIte

m.do;jsessionid=46E63DEC0EADE155D4F2331CC0CE34B7?conten

tType=Article&contentId=865403

The Economist (9 March 2006). “Searching for the invincible man”

Retrieved October, 2007, from

http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_V

GDTRJD

Thompson, J. L. (1999). “The world of the entrepreneur – a new

perspective Journal of workplace learning: Employee counselling

today” 11; 6:209-224. Retrived October, 2007, from

www.emeraldinsight.com

Von Schultz, C. (2005).”En god affärsman vet hur man tjänar pengar”.

Retrieved October, 2007, from www.nyteknik.com

Internet sources: Business analysis made easy (2006) What is standard deviation?. Retrieved 1

January, 2008, from http://www.business-analysis-made-easy.com/What-

Is-Standard-Deviation.html

Mrs. Fields: About us (2007). About Mrs.Fields. Retrieved October,

2007, from http://www.mrsfields.com/about

Online dictionary (2005). “Opportunism”. Retrieved October, 2007,

from http://onlinedictionary.datasegment.com/word/opportunism

Schultz, C (8 April 2005). “En god affärs angel vet hur man tjänar

pengar” Retrived October, 2007, from

http://www.nyteknik.se/art/39941

The top entrepreneurship resource (18 February 2005). Entreprenurship,

meaning. Retrieved October, 2007, from

www.zeromillion.com/entrepreneurship/entrepreneurship-

meaning.html

59

Thompson J (1999). “The world of the entrepreneur – a new perspective”.

Retrieved October, 2007, from

http://www.emeraldinsight.com.ezproxy.bibl.hkr.se/Insight/viewContentIt

em.do;jsessionid=A53B45EE554170CE7558D70B66D9B336?contentTyp

e=Article&contentId=882163>

Virgin Group (2007). Retrived November, 2007, from

http://www.virgin.com/home.aspx

Wikipedia (2007). ”Spearman rank of correlation coefficient”. Retrieved

November, 15 2007 from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spearman%27s_rank_correlation_coefficient

Women entrepreneurs in Science and Technology (n.d). Entrepreneurs

definition. Retrived October, 2007, from

http://westaction.org/definitions/def_entrepreneurship_1.html

Entrepreneur characteristics test:

Community features (2006). Entrepreneurs test from

http://www.communityfutures.com/cms/Entrepreneur_Test.15.0.html

Do you have what it takes to be an entrepreneur? (1999). from

http://www.careerccc.org/products/cp_99_e/section4/quiz.html

Free entrepreneur Personality test (2005). from

http://www.davincimethod.com/entrepreneur-test/

Queendom the land of tests (2007). from

http://www.queendom.com/queendom_tests/transfer?req=MXw2OTR

8MTc0Njc2M3wxfDF8MQ==&refempt=1

Other sources:

Collin, S-O., (2006). ‘The mastering of the corporation-An intergrated

60

view of the corporate governance’ The Department of business at

Kristianstad University

Longman, Dictionary of Contemporary English, (2003). 4th ed.

“Innovative” Harlow, Sweden: Pearson Education Limited

61

Appendices

Appendix 1. The questionnaire [English]

Entrepreneurial characteristics

On a scale of 1 to 7 where 1 means “ I highly disagree” 4 means “ I

neither agree or disagree” and 7 means “ I fully agree”, where would you

place yourself on the following questions. Please try to be as honest as

possible and go with your first instincts.

1. I am prepared to make sacrifices in my family life and take a cut in pay to

succeed in business.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. When faced with a stalemated situation in a group meeting, I am usually

the one who breaks the log jam and gets the ball rolling again.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3. When I begin a work task, I set clear goals and objectives for myself.

62

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4. When it comes to difficult situations at work, I am usually able to come up

with more than just one solution to a problem.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5. I like the feeling of being in charge of other people at work.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6. I worry about what the people around me think of me.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7. In general I enjoy achieving something just to prove that I can.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8. In general I have a knack for thinking up new ideas.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9. I am not afraid to try and solve problems that my colleagues have had

difficulties with.

63

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10. I will not hesitate facing a confrontation if that is what it takes to achieve

the organizations goal.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

11. I try to find the benefits in a bad situation that occurs at work.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

12. I blame my colleagues and other people involved when things do not go as

planned.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

13. I enjoy tackling a new work task without knowing all the potential

problems.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

14. I enjoy being able to make my own decisions at work.

64

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

15. I can accept failure at work without admitting defeat.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

16. I would persist with my business idea even if I get criticized from the

people around me.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

17. I strive to use past mistakes at work as a learning process.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

18. I prefer to be a loner when making a final decision.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

19. If I have to make a decision at work, I will always choose the certain

over the uncertain.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

20. I can recover from emotional setbacks.

65

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

21. I keep New Year’s resolutions.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

22. I view social gatherings as an opportunity that might result in a new

customer.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

23. I would gamble on a new business idea even if it the outcome is

uncertain.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

24. In general I find it easy finding solutions to a problem.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

25. I have a reputation for being stubborn no matter what.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

66

26. In general I have a huge interest in learning something new.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

27. In general I like to experiment to achieve wanted results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

28. I like to have new and exciting experiences in general even if they are

frightening at first.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

29. I see problems at work as challenges.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

30. I do not like making a move when I am not sure what the outcome will be.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

67

Questions

1. What is your main industry?

2. Does your organization have any industry alongside your main

industry?

3. Would you please list the services that you offer your customers.

68

Appendix 2. The questionnaire [Swedish]

Entreprenöriella karaktärsdrag

På en skala 1 till 7 där 1 innebär “Jag instämmer inte alls” 4 innebär “Jag

varken instämmer eller inte” och 7 innebär ” Jag instämmer helt”, var skulle du

vilja placera dig själv på följande påståenden. Vi ber dig svara så ärligt som

möjligt och att följa dina första instinkter.

1. Jag är beredd att göra uppoffringar i mitt familjeliv samt att gå ner i lön för

att lyckas affärsmässigt.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. När det uppstår ett dödläge under ett dödläget och får bollen i rullning

igen.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3. När jag börjar på en arbetsuppgift sätter jag tydliga mål för mig själv.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4. När det gäller knepiga situationer i mitt arbete lyckas jag oftast komma på

fler än en lösning till hur ett problem ska lösas.

69

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5. Jag tycker om känslan av att bestämma över andra på mitt arbete.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6. Jag oroar mig över vad min omgivning ska tycka om mig.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7. Rent generellt tycker jag om att prestera något bara för att bevisa att jag

kan.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8. Rent generellt är jag bra på att komma på nya idéer.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9. Jag försöker mig gärna på att lösa problem som mina kolleger har haft

svårigheter med.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10. Jag tvekar inte över att komma i konfrontation om det krävs för att nå

uppsatt mål för företaget.

70

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

11. Jag försöker se fördelarna i en dålig situation som uppstår i mitt arbete.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

12. Jag skyller på mina kolleger eller andra iblandade när saker och ting ej

går som de ska.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

13. Jag tycker om att ge mig på en ny arbetsuppgift utan att känna till

eventuella problem i förhand.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

14. Jag tycker om att få fatta mina egna beslut på jobbet.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

15. Jag kan acceptera motgångar på jobbet utan att erkänna nederlag.

71

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

16. Jag skulle fortsätta med min affärsidé trots kritik från min omgivning.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

17. Jag ser tidigare misstag i mitt arbete som del i en inlärningsprocess.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

18. Jag tar helst viktiga beslut på mitt arbete helt själv.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

19. Om jag måste fatta ett beslut i mitt arbete, väljer jag alltid det säkra före

det osäkra.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

20. Jag kan återhämta mig ifrån emotionella bakslag.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

21. Jag håller mina nyårslöften.

72

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

22. Jag ser sociala tillställningar som ett tillfälle som eventuellt kan resultera

i en ny kund.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

23. Jag skulle ta en chans på en ny affärs idé trots att utgången är osäker.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

24. Rent generellt har jag lätt för att se hur ett problem ska lösas.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

25. Jag har rykte om mig att vara en envis person oavsett vad det gäller.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

26. Rent generellt har jag ett stort intresse av att lära mig nya saker.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

27. Rent generellt experimenterar jag gärna för att nå önskvärda resultat.

73

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

28. Jag tycker om att uppleva nya och spännande saker överlag även om de

till en början verkar skrämmande.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

29. Jag ser problem på mitt arbete som utmaningar.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

30. Jag tycker rent generellt inte om att utföra en handling när jag ej på

förhand vet hur det kommer att gå.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

74

Frågor

1. Vilken är ert företags huvudnäring?

2. Har företaget någon binäring, i så fall vilken?

3. Lista vänligen de tjänster som ni erbjuder era kunder.

75

Appendix 3. The key to the 30 statements

The key to the 30 statements

1: Determined and Persistent

2: Leader

3: Determined and Persistent

4: Innovative and Creative

5: Leader

6: Risk-taker

7: Opportunist

8: Innovative and Creative

9: Innovative and Creative

10: Leader

11: Optimist

12: Leader

13: Risk-taker

14: Innovative and Creative

15: Determined and Persistent

16: Risk-taker

17: Optimist

18: Leader

19: Risk-taker

20: Optimist

21: Determined and Persistent

22: Opportunist

23: Risk-taker

24: Optimist

25: Determined and Persistent

26: Opportunist

76

27: Innovative and Creative

28: Opportunist

29: Optimist

30: Opportunist